Aiken v. Bridgman
Supreme Court of Vermont
Assumpsit in the general counts for property sold the defendant, a part of which belonged to the estate of Samuel Aiken. Plea, the general issue and a declaration in general assumpsit in offset. Trial by jury, June Term, 1864, Poland, Ch. J., presiding.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit in the general counts for property sold the defendant, a part of which belonged to the estate of Samuel Aiken. Plea, the general issue and a declaration in general assumpsit in offset. Trial by jury, June Term, 1864, Poland, Ch. J., presiding. It appeared that the plaintiff and his brother, Solomon Aiken, were joint administrators of the estate of Samuel Aiken at the time said property was sold to the defendant, but that most of the business in selling said estate was done by the plaintiff. These items were'of such amount that if disallowed the balance would be with the defendant.…
1Opinion of the CourtKellogg, J.
An administrator may sue to recover the price of property belonging to the estate of his intestate and sold by himself personally, without naming himself as administrator, or joining his co-administrator. Brassington et al. v. Ault, 2 Bingh. 177, (9 E. C. L. 369 ;) Heath v. Chilton, 12 Mees. & W. 632 ; 1 Saund., (Patteson & Williams’ edition,) 291, k. note (m.;) 2 ib. 47, x. note (t.;) 2 Greenl. Ev., § 338. The privity of contract in such a case is not between the purchaser and the estate of the intestate, but is between the purchaser and the administrator of whom he purchases the property.…
2Cited by11 opinions
- McLaughlin v. WinnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- Bates v. SabinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1892
- Haskell v. BowenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1872
- Hatch v. Hatch's EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1887
- McLane v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1886
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.